BM07                                                                                                         Version Date: 30 July 1991






Kevin J. Sharpe

Union Institute Graduate School

Mailing Address: 65 Hoit Road, Concord, NH 03301, USA

The physicist David Bohm has proposed and promoted controversial theories. These are not only in physics - hidden variables, quantum potential, holomovement, Aharonov-Bohm effect, and so on - but also in metaphysics. Many writers align him with new age philosophy and some with Thomism; no agreement appears.

In this work I will briefly describe Bohm's holomovement metaphysics and develop it further. In particular I will discuss what the theory could say about cosmic evolution. As such the essay introduces a metaphysics rooted in science. I then look at its theological potential.



Since I have described Bohm's metaphysics in previous publications, I will only touch on his more well-known ideas.[1]

Central to his metaphysics is the idea of the holomovement. It is basic to reality; "What is is the holomovement".[2] It has two emphases. The first concerns the movement part of the word holomovement. Bohm does not take something static and rigid as the basis for his new order. He wants to build it on activity. The second part of the holomovement is undivided or unbroken wholeness. The word holomovement uses the prefix holo from the Greek meaning whole.[3] Bohm suggests each region of space and time contains the total order of the universe, including the past, present and future.[4]

The implicate order is for Bohm a more general term than the holomovement. The holomovement is an example of an implicate order. It carries an implicate order. The word implicate comes from the verb to implicate, to fold inward. Reality as implicate means any portion of it involves every other portion. Everything folds into everything. Each part of it contains folded within it information on every other part. Each region contains the total structure of the universe, the whole.[5]

The holomovement is an unbroken and undivided whole. Thus all forms of it merge. We cannot separate them. In the holomovement's wholeness, nothing limits it. This means we cannot define or measure it because to describe or specify it is to divide it. In turn this suggests a theory can only concentrate on an aspect of the holomovement important in a limited context. Only through the holomovement's particular appearances is it known, and then only glimpses of its shadow are possible.[6]

That shadow is often the explicate order. The implicate order, the holomovement, unfolds. Certain aspects of the holomovement lift into attention, come into relief.[7] It produces parts which appear independent. The explicate order is the reality made of these items - which may or may not interact with each other. They create the stable, independent and lasting world of parts. They are the explicate order of our experience.

The content of the holomovement unfolds as the explicate world. For a particular context what comes from the holomovement is something we perceive as, in Bohm's terms, an ensemble. In it each part relates to the whole.[8] Holonomy (the law of the whole) will always limit the breaking of a situation into independent parts. They come from a more basic whole and in the end are not separate.[9]

To describe something you begin, according to Bohm, with the holomovement. Then you draw from the holomovement a situation which is broad enough to make the description adequate. So the context itself plays an active role in unfolding the aspects of the holomovement important to it. Certain aspects are important for a given context while others are not.[10]

This is because in most contexts the implicate order does not fully become an explicate order. Everything does not unfold at once. Within any given situation there may be several different explicate orders which cannot emerge together.[11] This contrasts with the Cartesian view. Here some all-including intelligence (God) can in principle embrace everything at any moment.



Another pair of ideas in addition to the explicate/implicate orders develops this metaphysics further. It is locality and its opposite nonlocality. A nonlocal effect happens when an event affects a simultaneous event far from it. Nonlocality is the opposite of the common-sense "principle of local causes" or the idea of locality. This says that what happens in one place has nothing to do with what happens at the same moment at a distant place.[12] The connection or influence between two nonlocal events is one that has no normal explanation. There are no physical forces acting between them. A normal connection between them cannot travel faster than the speed of light. It takes time to travel and so the influence between them cannot be instantaneous.

The idea of nonlocality has received considerable attention recently. In the early 1980s Alain Aspect carried out a version of an experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in a 1935 publication.[13] Several others, including Bohm, helped refine the theoretical and practical sides of the experiment so it could become a reality.[14] The results show that nonlocality exists at the quantum level.[15]

There are close connections between the two pairs of terms, locality/nonlocality and explicate/implicate (or holomovement).

Locality is a restriction, a special or limiting case of nonlocality. Nonlocality, for instance, does not rule out local influences, but universal locality rules out nonlocal ones.

Similarly, the explicate order emerges from the implicate yet is also within the implicate. This is because the implicate order allows for separation of events while they relate within a larger system. But the explicate does not accept that everything relates to everything else.

Nonlocality, which allows for instantaneous connections, is similar to an implicate order. It suggests one way for relating everything in an implicate order. That nonlocality and the implicate order or holomovement have this in common is not surprising since Bohm uses the implicate order idea to explain nonlocality.

Thus there are close connections between the ideas of implicate/explicate and nonlocality/locality. These are the basic ideas for the holomovement metaphysics and this is as far most descriptions of it go. But there is more.



There are several movements through time in Bohm's universe. These movements help further develop the holomovement metaphysics.

Tucked away in their reflections on their metaphysics and physics, Bohm and his colleague Basil Hiley hide a key. Nonlocality came first in the evolution of the universe. In the early stages after the big bang, nonlocality locked together all the particles in the universe.[16] When it began to expand, the particles collided and caused locality. Locality and separation go hand in hand.

In the explicate universe there is a movement over time. It goes from nonlocality to locality, associated with the expansion of the universe. Although related, this movement is different from the continual folding and unfolding of the explicate order into and out from the implicate. The move from nonlocality to locality has now gone so far that in the macro world there is little nonlocality. Almost everything relates in a local or classical manner. Exceptions are at the quantum level.[17]

Why should nonlocality produce locality? Hiley shows how it results from collisions between particles. Thus, it comes about from the laws of physics applied to an expanding big bang universe. Another requirement is irreversibility: the universe is moving in one direction and cannot retreat to where it was earlier.[18]

The rise of locality, therefore, does not need a mystical explanation. It is unnecessary, for instance, to invoke Bohm's idea of fragmentation as the source of locality. Embedded in the implicate order, fragmentation could unfold into the explicate to cause separation and locality.

There are two other movements in the universe besides that from nonlocality to locality.



The universe uses energy right from the initial moment of the big bang. In the language of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy increases, it always increases. For instance, the appearance of locality from nonlocality produces entropy. Locality is at a lower energy level, in general, than is nonlocality because it is less organized. To start with, it does not have nonlocality.

Increasing entropy is the second movement of the universe through time. The universe is winding down and scattering its energy. The history of the universe is irreversible.



I have introduced the terms locality, nonlocality, implicate (holomovement), explicate, and entropy. They relate in various ways, some of which I discuss above. There are other terms yet to introduce, and further relations between them to examine. A picture is beginning to emerge of a pair of ideas: locality, separation and entropy are on one side, and nonlocality on the other.

The other terms balance the pairing on the nonlocality side. One of the pair of opposite arrows through time includes increasing entropy. Opposing it is increasing complexity, the increase in complexity-consciousness. The term evolution describes it. It says some parts of the world are building up rather than running down.

The work of Ilya Prigogine and Manfred Eigen is important in describing this evolutionary movement.[19] The universe started with extremely high energy and the tendency to lose it. The universe was simple although it produced more complex objects such as suns and planets that store and spend energy. All these objects run down. On the other hand we see around us biological, social, even chemical and physical systems which increase in energy. Prigogine shows these systems are inevitable given physical laws. A system which uses energy, is unstable, and changes chaotically can settle at a stable point with a higher energy level. A system, that is, can become more complex. It does so, and thus satisfies the Second Law of Thermodynamics, at the expense of its environment. The environment takes on more entropy to make up for the system's energy growth and stability. So the net entropy of the system plus its environment increases.

The evolution of complex systems such as Prigogine describes assumes the irreversibility in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In this it is like the requirements Hiley lists for the development of locality from nonlocality.

The key characteristic of evolution, of the increase in complexity of a system, is internal connections. That the universe is becoming more complex means some of its parts are connecting more and more with each other. Different elements come together to form wholes or systems. Then systems come together to form supersystems. But the parts of a system connect more in the system than when separate. Further, this connectedness is like the implicate order. Complex systems involve their parts not only in connections and movement (constant change) as in the holomovement. They also more subtly reflect these qualities in their self-regulation, life, self-maintenance, defense, and so on. Thus the implicate holomovement makes its appearance in the explicate order.

 A system is also more nonlocal than its parts. This is because the whole causes the elements to behave in special ways as clusters, all together, or individually. Relating over distances though not connected by immediate physical contact is a form of nonlocality. Whether it is instantaneous and of the quantum type, is a matter to explore. Thus nonlocality reemerges at the macro level having succumbed to locality near the beginning of the universe.

There has been a development over the life of the universe in two directions. One is the increase in entropy and locality. This reflects the increase of separation between objects and the winding down of the universe. The other is evolution leading to increasing complexity and the gradual increase of internal connections. This reflects the advent and development of life and complex systems.

Several qualifications are in order. First, evolution or growing complexity may not be exactly the same as increasing nonlocality. The two movements are similar but not the same. The movement toward increasing complexity continually happens (as does the increase in entropy). It is of two types. The first is from initial unity and simplicity to more forms of matter. The second comes from Prigogine-type processes. The universe houses systems and organisms which become more numerous and complex over time. On the other hand, the increase in complexity does not parallel the increase in nonlocality. This applies especially in the first phases of the universe. In fact nonlocality decreases once locality initially appears.

Similarly, increasing locality associated with increasing separation does not start right at the beginning of the big bang. This differs from entropy. The two are not the same.

There are two opposite and related movements of the universe. One is evolutionary toward complexity and increased connectedness (nonlocality). The other is toward locality and increased entropy.

I have outlined an evolutionary metaphysics and its underlying ideas of nonlocality and the holomovement. I believe it shows promise. It may provide a clear basis for developing an approach to the universe, life and consciousness. In doing so it speaks from and to the modern scientifically-based world. It may also speak from and to the world of traditional religions. To move in this direction merits further exploration. In particular, it has theological potential as seen in the next sections which focus on the relation of God to the holomovement.



An extensive comparison of Bohm's ideas to Christian theology comes from Robert Russell.[20] He notes an interesting bridge between Bohm's ideas and theology, namely that for Bohm God is the holomovement. This God, Russell says, need not be personal. On the other hand this approach need not lead to pantheism, the belief that everything is divine. Bohm's ideas "point to transcendent...features of nature which could correspond to divine presence." On balance, Russell concludes, Bohm is probably closest to a panentheist image of God. God contains the universe.[21]

Russell has an incorrect understanding of the divine in Bohm's metaphysics. Bohm does not believe God is the holomovement or that God contains the holomovement. For Bohm the divine is beyond the holomovement, beyond all implicate orders. God is beyond them in ways that defy our ideas. In Bohm's scheme the holomovement is part of the created order.[22] I prefer to explore Russell's interpretation of Bohm although it veers from Bohm's ideas.[23] I wish to develop the holomovement as an image of God.

Other religious thinkers have also equated the holomovement with God. David Trickett is an example. He thinks Bohm sees an individual human as a sort of image of the implicate order. Then he asks whether God is a projection of this image of the implicate order. "If so, just what is the nature of this God?" He also wants to understand the relations between God and such aspects of the implicate order as human beings and nonhuman nature.[24] There is much appeal to the image of God as the holomovement.[25]

In the rest of this essay I will explore only a few of the results of the holomovement model for God.



Nonlocality is an important part of Bohm's metaphysics for theology. Its theological users lean toward a global nonlocality: everything connects with everything else. It is instantaneous and defies normal explanations. Nonlocality feels like the all-embracing being of God who is omniscient and omnipotent, not restricted by space and time.

Many topics in theology could use the nonlocality idea. For example, Russell suggests nonlocality as a model for the church. Or nonlocality might be a withinness and equated with the Spirit of God. When associated with the holomovement, nonlocality injects a creativity into the idea of God's Spirit.[26] And the Trees Clap their Hands is Virginia Stem Owens' mystical meditation on the physics of Bohm and others. For her, energy, the spirit, the implicate order, is "by far the largest `part'...of matter....It is God's life that flows through the arteries of the world, that seeps in the capillaries enclosing each quark, that sustains being at every moment." Further, "It is God who thinks the whole, rounded thought of the universe. And as one thought, its nature, its total order, is indeed implicit."[27]

Global nonlocality is a way of talking about ecological togetherness too. We are all in this together. If any part suffers, we all do. Each of us connects with everything else.[28]

David Peat's book Synchronicity explores global nonlocality in a Jungian way.[29] Connections can be at the subconscious level; sometimes they become conscious and we feel a foreboding or something similar. Theology might pursue Peat's path.[30]

The above are examples of how theology might use global nonlocality. One must be wary, however. Global nonlocality extends the nonlocality idea of current quantum physics because the latter may only apply to the quantum world. Nonlocality may be more global. At present its global use is a metaphysical idea which does not have physics' experimental support.

This section has discussed the theological usefulness of nonlocality rather than of the holomovement specifically. Bohm uses the holomovement to explain nonlocality, be it at the quantum level or global. Theology could find both ideas useful.



In particular, theology could use the holomovement idea as a model for God. Several matters follow directly from doing this.

To start with, there are two ways to take it. The weaker is to make the relation between God and the world like that between the holomovement and the arena of human experience. The God-world relation is like the implicate order-explicate order relation. Many purposes only need this. Other purposes require something stronger. They need that God be like the holomovement. Exploring the theology of the holomovement God often needs the latter.

Second, God contains the world as the implicate contains the explicate. The explicate comes from the implicate and folds back into it. The explicate is a particular part or restriction of the implicate. Further, as the explicate folds back into the implicate, what happens in the explicate order affects the implicate. Thus the world and human beings can affect God.

For theology, God is the creator of the world. In the new model this is also the task of the holomovement. So describing the activity of the holomovement is describing the activity of God.

Traditionally there are two ways of talking of God as creator. The first is of God creating out of nothing at the beginning. The second is of God continually creating the world and all that is in it, moment by moment. Both forms of creative activity are present in the holomovement model of God.

Consider first the idea of God initially creating the universe. The point of the Christian doctrine is that the universe and everything in it depend for their existence on God. This has its parallel in a holomovement theology. The explicate order depends on the implicate for its being.

The other part of the doctrine of creation has to do with God's continuous creativity or creating. Tradition calls it God-the-sustainer. The holomovement language provides a means for talking of this creating in both the human and natural worlds. Bohm describes the holomovement as continually unfolding itself. It thus creates the explicate order of our experience. The holomovement God is continually making each item, relation, feeling, and so on, in the world. God does this moment by moment. God does it by unfolding the potential in the implicate holomovement which itself is God.

Russell points out this parallel too.[31] He says Bohm thinks of the universe "as an objective, self-contained, [connected] whole....[It is] a unit of infinite complexity. Nothing can arise out of nothing". Everything in nature comes from something else. Everything is the product of strings of generations. This idea, Russell suggests, is similar to the belief that everything depends for its existence on God's sustaining power. Everything depends on the continual activity of God as creator.

God is not the only creator. When they take part in the activity of the holomovement, humans and other beings create the explicate order along with God. One could say we participate in the divine creativity by reaching into the holomovement in our creative acts. Philip Hefner calls humans in this role created co-creators.[32]

The God who is the holomovement is not only everything that is potential. Part of God is also the mechanism by which that potential becomes actual. The holomovement model says how this mechanism works. It thereby describes how God works. Scientific laws are descriptions of the way God works. The laws do not have any power themselves. Neither do they refer to Platonic-like powers which exist as part of or at another level from the world. They describe the action of God. Thus, a holomovement theology describes how God brings each moment into existence.



Discussion on the creator God leads to talk of mystery and transcendence. And this leads to spirituality.

The world, according to Bohm, has an endless depth. In his words, there is a qualitative infinity to nature. That the implicate order unfolds into the explicate order of our experience means we can never know the world in full. The unfoldings can always be different; they are only partial. Thus despite the success of our knowledge, nature will always elude us and be beyond our comprehension. All explanations are imperfect. The qualitative infinity of nature means the holomovement metaphysics is not going to produce a mechanistic, anti-religious explanation of everything.

Mystery will always face us. Our sense of the wonder, and of the corrupt depths into which humans can fall, are on target. There is more to life and to all and everything than we can grasp.

The qualitative infinity of nature means the holomovement God will always transcend us and our explicate world. The holomovement eludes our knowledge. All we can have are glimpses into the unknown which is both reality and the creator God. But this transcendence is not absolute where we can know nothing of God. We just cannot know everything.

The holomovement God not only transcends our human world. God is also immanent by continuously bringing about each event of the world of our experience. Everything bears the mark of the holomovement. Everything is in God.

The immanence and transcendence of the holomovement God are the root of spirituality: we feel and sense something more within ourselves and our experience. We feel and sense an otherness which also connects closely with us. Holomovement theology expects a wealth of such spiritual experience. The difference from tradition is that this understanding of the spiritual is not of a wholly other. It is natural, but it does differ from us.



The holomovement God is personal. One personal attribute we give to the holomovement is agency. It does things; we say the holomovement creates the explicate order by its unfolding. We can go a lot further. In fact, we can move quite beyond Russell's conclusion that the holomovement God need not be personal. God has to do with human hopes and creative desires. Our emotions, thoughts, feelings, hopes, fears, relationships, joys, and so on, are part of the explicate order which we experience. Yet they come from the holomovement. The subjective as well as the objective unfold from the implicate order. The two classes of experience are not distinct but partial views of reality.

It is also possible to think of God as transcending personal attributes. Many people think of personal qualities and experiences as the highest order possible for beings and organisms in the world. But human beings are only parts of the whole which is the world. And the world is a system whose features are difficult to fathom. The whole, God, not only includes human attributes but, by being a whole, goes beyond them.

The holomovement God is the source of all our objective and subjective experiences. Thus God could relate to us personally. Whether this happens and, if it does, what form the relation takes, are subjects for theology to ponder.

A related topic is consciousness. Suppose consciousness comes from the evolution of the brain into an extremely complex system whose parts are very closely connected. Suppose it is not a thing, but is a property of such an internally connected system as the brain. The holomovement is more complex and internally connected than is the brain. So one could think of it as having the highest form of consciousness. It might even be pure consciousness. Bohm says consciousness is of the material world and arises from the holomovement.[33] Each person's consciousness participates in the universal consciousness (of humanity) found within the holomovement. The previous argument suggests a way to support and understand Bohm's view. God's consciousness transcends ours.



I outlined the basics of Bohm's holomovement metaphysics and showed how to extend it to include movements within the universe through time. Then, by thinking of the holomovement as God, I raised some ways for developing a holomovement theology. This theology has rich potential. Yet much reflection is necessary before rating it more fully. Morality is only one subject for further exploration. There are also veins not tapped in the above theological outline. For instance, there was no mention of the movements in the universe. Filling out this theology is the task of future writings.



ABSTRACT. The holomovement metaphysics of David Bohm emphasizes connections and continuous change. Two general movements through time in the universe extend Bohm's ideas. The universe started nonlocal but increases in locality. (Nonlocality is where two simultaneous but distant events affect each other.) There is a similar increase in entropy. The opposite movement is an evolution toward increasingly complex systems which exhibit internal connections and a type of nonlocality. This metaphysics produces a theology when its underlying holomovement becomes a model for God. Several topics naturally follow. These include global nonlocality, God as creator, God's transcendence and immanence, and God as personal. The theology shows promise but needs further development.


KEYWORDS. David Bohm, entropy, holism, holomovement, metaphysics, nonlocality, systematic theology.

VITAE. Kevin Sharpe is a professor in the Graduate School of the Union Institute, Cincinnati, USA. He has a doctorate in mathematics and another in religious studies, and his interests center on the relations between science and religion. He is editor of Science & Religion News, past Executive Officer and now a Vice President of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science. Included in his previous publications are From Science to an Adequate Mythology (Auckland: Interface Press, 1984) and David Bohm's World: New Physics and New Religion (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, forthcoming). This article builds from his previous work on Bohm.

[1]Kevin J. Sharpe, "Relating the Physics and Religion of David Bohm," Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 25 (1990): 105-22; David Bohm's World: New Physics and New Religion (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, forthcoming).

[2]David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980), p. 178.

[3]B. J. Hiley, "Towards an Algebraic Description of Reality," Annales de la Foundation Louis de Broglie 5 (1980): 78, 94.

[4]Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, p. 177.

[5]David Bohm, "Quantum Theory as an Indication of a New Order in Physics. B. Implicate and Explicate Order in Physical Law," Foundations of Physics 3 (1973): 146-47.

[6]David Bohm, "The Implicate or Enfolded Order: A New Order for Physics," in Mind in Nature: Essays on the Interface of Science and Philosophy, ed. John B. Cobb, Jr. and David Ray Griffin (Washington: University Press of America, 1978), p. 40.

[7]Bohm employs the verb to relevate.

[8]David Bohm, Basil J. Hiley and Allan E. G. Stuart, "On a New Mode of Description in Physics," International Journal of Theoretical Physics 3 (1970): 176.

[9]David Bohm, "The Implicate Order: A New Order for Physics," Process Studies 8 (1978): 93; D. J. Bohm and B. J. Hiley, "On the Intuitive Understanding of Nonlocality as Implied by Quantum Theory," Foundations of Physics 5 (1975): 99. Sal Restivo and Michael Zenzen, "Holonomy in Physics and Society," Man-Environment Systems 11 (1981): 177-83, use Bohm's concept of holonomy as the basis for a general metaphysics; see also Steven M. Rosen, "David Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order: An Interpretive Essay," Man-Environment Systems 12 (1982): 9-18.

[10]Bohm holds metaphysical beliefs which cause or inspire or come from his above ideas. I have described them in previous publications (e.g., Sharpe, David Bohm's World). They include: reality has an endless depth; the parts of reality relate to each other; the whole and all pieces of reality are constantly in process, in movement; the movement of reality is creative; and reality divides into levels. This is not all of Bohm's metaphysical base.

[11]F. A. M. Frescura and B. J. Hiley, "The Implicate Order, Algebras, and the Spinor," Foundations of Physics 10 (1980): 11-12.

[12]H. P. Stapp, "Theory of Reality," Foundations of Physics 7 (1977): 314.

[13]Alain Aspect, Philippe Grangier and G,rard Roger, "Experimental Realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell's Inequalities," Physical Review Letters 49 (1982): 91-94; A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?" Physical Review 47 (1935): 777-80.

[14]David Bohm, Quantum Theory (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1951).

[15]Sharpe, David Bohm's World, describes this more fully.

[16]B. J. Hiley, "Cosmology, EPR Correlations and Separability," in Bell's Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, ed. Menas Kafatos (Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989), p. 189.

[17]Hiley, "Cosmology, EPR Correlations and Separability," p. 188.

[18]Hiley, "Cosmology, EPR Correlations and Separability," pp. 188-90.

[19]Ilya Prigogine, From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co. 1980). Bohm compares his and Prigogine's ideas in his "The Implicate Order and Prigogine's Notions of Irreversibility," Foundations of Physics 17 (1987): 667-77.

[20]Robert John Russell, "The Physics of David Bohm and its Relevance to Philosophy and Theology," Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 20 (1985): 135-58.

[21]Russell, "The Physics of David Bohm", p. 153; David Bohm, "Hidden Variables and the Implicate Order," Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 20 (1985): 124. See also David Bohm and Ren,e Weber, "Of Matter and Meaning: The Super-Implicate Order," Re-Vision 6 (1983): 43-44.

[22]David Bohm, "Response to Conference Papers on `David Bohm's Implicate Order: Physics, Philosophy, and Theology,'" Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 20 (1985): 219-20.

[23]I do this for reasons I have outlined in previous publications, e.g., Sharpe, David Bohm's World.

[24]David G. Trickett, Review of Wholeness and the Implicate Order by David Bohm, Process Studies 12 (1982): 53-54. See also B. D. Josephson, "Science and Religion: How to Make a Synthesis?" Perkins Journal 36 (1983): 38-39; he suggests equating God the orderer of nature, the intelligence behind the scenes, with the implicate order. Patrick A. Heelan, "Space as God's Presence," Journal of Dharma 8 (1983): 78-84, surveys the place of God in metaphysical schemes, including Bohm's, which derive from or relate to contemporary physics. See also Ted Peters, "David Bohm, Postmodernism, and the Divine," Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 20 (1985): 193-217.

[25]This concept for God may not be all that different to the one Paul Davies proposes in God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983). It does not mean, of course, that God is restricted to our concept of holomovement or whatever symbol we choose. God may well be more than our concepts of God.

[26]This does not counter the distinction Peters ("David Bohm, Postmodernism, and the Divine," p. 209) makes that for Bohm the implicate order is matter and not spirit. It is posing a question using Bohm's categories without necessarily being honest to Bohm's own terminology.

[27]Virginia Stem Owens, And the Trees Clap their Hands: Faith, Perception, and the New Physics (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983), pp. 59, 130-31.

[28]Charles Birch and John B. Cobb, Jr., The Liberation of Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).

[29]F. David Peat, Synchronicity: The Bridge Between Matter and Mind (New York: Bantam Books, 1987).

[30]In doing so it competes with transpersonal psychology and parapsychology.

[31]Russell, "The Physics of David Bohm," pp. 151-56.

[32]Philip Hefner, "The Evolution of the Created Co-creator," in Cosmos as Creation: Theology and Science in Consonance, ed. Ted Peters (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989), pp. 211-33.

[33]David Bohm and Ren,e Weber, "The Enfolding-Unfolding Universe: A Conversation with David Bohm," Re-Vision 1 (1978): 24-51.